The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

I wonder why they chose 4 radar faces instead of three for the AEW&C, arguably dwell time and reaction time will be reduced as christopher sir said, but i wonder if the radome will be large enough for a huge antenna. It takes 10x power increase for 1.8x range increase if i am not mistaken, and even with a third engine in the airbus specifically for the power output having 3 larger sized faces may have increased radar performance.

This news couldn't have come at a better time than this. On February 14, the day Aero India 2017 begins, the IAF will be the proud owner of its very own indigenous all-weather airborne early warning and control system popularly known as the AEW&C.

This aerial platform is meant to be a force multiplier that will guide the IAF's fighter aircraft during combat. It will have the capability to detect incoming fighters, cruise missiles and even drones from both Pakistan and China.

For Dr. Christopher, Chairman, DRDO it will be a fine day indeed. He was earlier the Programme Director (airborne early warning and control system) and Director, Centre for Air-Borne Systems in the DRDO before being elevated to the topmost post.

Speaking exclusively to India Today, he said that his association with the early warning system programme goes back to 1985 when it all started. He also had a narrow escape having flown on the same test aircraft as a flight engineer that crashed in January 1999. 'I flew on that same test aircraft, the previous sortie, the last but one sortie before it crashed,' he told India Today.

The indigenous AEW&C system has been developed by Bengaluru based CABS and integrated onto a Brazilian built Embraer-145 aircraft. It is equipped with a 240-degree coverage radar and can detect, identify and classify threats in the surveillance area and also act as a Command and Control Centre to support Air Defence operations.

Dr. CP Ramanarayanan, Director General - Aeronautical Systems (Aero) participated in the final trials of the AEW&C. 'I was onboard this flight in Jodhpur and it was so heartening to see all the functional performance requirements were met meticulously,' he says. According to him the users (IAF) observed that this was such a trial they have never undergone. So while the second AEW&C will be handed over to the IAF in a few months time, the third which was initially to be with CABS, will also be handed over to the IAF.LOTS OF CATCHING UP TO DO

China today has more than 20 AWACS and Pakistan has 8 AWACS, India on the other hand has just this one AEW&C and 3 Phalcon systems. To play catch up, in March 2016, the Defence Acquisition Council cleared the building of 2 AWACS-India.

These systems will be much more powerful and capable than the AEW&C and will involve mounting an indigenous 360-degree coverage AESA radar on an Airbus A-330 jet. 'As far as the functionality is concerned, both are identical. However, the new one is much more capable with extended range and better angular coverage,' Dr. S Christopher says. The requirement of the IAF is for 8 AWACS-I aircraft.

As of today, Dr. Christopher says the file will be moved to the Cabinet Committee on Security and they are hoping to secure clearance anytime soon with a developmental timeframe of close to 7 years.

Karan M wrote:I wonder why they chose 4 radar faces instead of three for the AEW&C, arguably dwell time and reaction time will be reduced as christopher sir said, but i wonder if the radome will be large enough for a huge antenna. It takes 10x power increase for 1.8x range increase if i am not mistaken, and even with a third engine in the airbus specifically for the power output having 3 larger sized faces may have increased radar performance.

Most likely due to antenna gain characteristics and beam forming. You want a smaller "spotlight" on the target, with the same power to give you a higher power density and increased probability of detection.

Exactly my point. The larger antenna has more gain. Plus allows you to get a smaller beam width for the radar.However, I did read from an AESA familiar guy that off boresight, at high deviation the performance of a standard AESA deteriorates by a large amount, and range drops drastically. So this explains why instead of having 3 large antennas and the beam steered across those angles, they likely preferred 4 smaller faces and also added more power via a third engine to allow you to get more radiated power from a smaller sized antenna but still make up. Also faster beam steering would allow them, as you say, to focus on smaller targets & dedicate more power.

Karan M wrote:Exactly my point. The larger antenna has more gain. Plus allows you to get a smaller beam width for the radar.However, I did read from an AESA familiar guy that off boresight, at high deviation the performance of a standard AESA deteriorates by a large amount, and range drops drastically. So this explains why instead of having 3 large antennas and the beam steered across those angles, they likely preferred 4 smaller faces and also added more power via a third engine to allow you to get more radiated power from a smaller sized antenna but still make up. Also faster beam steering would allow them, as you say, to focus on smaller targets & dedicate more power.

With AESA beam forming is an issue in terms of shape. This has been an issue for some time. Very oblique angles and the horizontal and vertical axis are not the same and you get an elliptical cross section instead of a circular cross section. For accurate velocity detection, a uniform beam shape is important. This is why in some applications a mechanically scanned radar is preferable, not so much on an airborne platform where weight is a concern. If I were designing a system, I would scan in elevation and rotate in azimuth.

A 3rd engine may not make much of a difference in terms of delivering high voltage power. You could just use a slightly different engine.

Karan M wrote:Exactly my point. The larger antenna has more gain. Plus allows you to get a smaller beam width for the radar.However, I did read from an AESA familiar guy that off boresight, at high deviation the performance of a standard AESA deteriorates by a large amount, and range drops drastically. So this explains why instead of having 3 large antennas and the beam steered across those angles, they likely preferred 4 smaller faces and also added more power via a third engine to allow you to get more radiated power from a smaller sized antenna but still make up. Also faster beam steering would allow them, as you say, to focus on smaller targets & dedicate more power.

With AESA beam forming is an issue in terms of shape. This has been an issue for some time. Very oblique angles and the horizontal and vertical axis are not the same and you get an elliptical cross section instead of a circular cross section. For accurate velocity detection, a uniform beam shape is important. This is why in some applications a mechanically scanned radar is preferable, not so much on an airborne platform where weight is a concern. If I were designing a system, I would scan in elevation and rotate in azimuth.

A 3rd engine may not make much of a difference in terms of delivering high voltage power. You could just use a slightly different engine.

As far AESA beam forming goes. It depends on how small of a beam angle you need to form. I don't think your going to find lots of AESA in applications that need 1 degree or less beam angle. Again it's about what needs to be detected and tracked. A designer for airborne systems weight is the primary concern, so AESA is the right way to go, unless there is a specific application you need where beam angle is priority. Rotary joints and slip rings have come a long way to have a fairly high MTBF.

SBand GaN TRMs will give respectable performance. A smaller SBand GaAs AEW&C is giving us 200km range in standard and 350km in extended modes. SAAB claims this same sized array, will "This has drawn on GaN technology used in Saab’s latest Giraffe radars to create a sensor with a 70 percent range increase over the previous Erieye generation to more than 300 nautical miles. "..

So a Phalcon sized radome ( developed under USHAS) can get us roughly a 400km range in standard conditions and say 600km with GaN against a 2 sq mtr target. Gives you 90 odd km against a 0.001 Sq Mtr target. Extended range modes may theoretically extend that. Note I was extrenely conservative and assumed a 20 perc advantage to the Euro etc guys in compact TRMs. So VLO targets remain a challenge ( detecting them at ranges where they can still launch VLR BVR ) but you at least have options as versus being deficient against them as of today.

http://googleweblight.com/i?u=http://ww ... r&hl=en-INThe radar is automated and software-driven. Compared with IAI-Elta's 1995 system, the CAEW delivers the same power in 2.5 times less installed weight, has a 200-fold increase in general-purpose processing and a 3,000-fold increase in signal-processing speed. It is described as "4D" radar: every track includes the target's three-dimensional position and Doppler information. The idea "is to track a fighter in a dogfight, over land clutter," says Itzhakian.The CAEW is believed to be the first radar to use a technology known as "track before detect" (TBD). Discussed since the 1970s, TBD improves the ability of a radar to detect small targets. To eliminate false alarms, conventional radars have to set a clutter and noise threshold below which radar returns are ignored. In TBD, those returns are assembled into the equivalent of a God's-eye picture and scanned for patterns that resemble target tracks.CAEW uses TBD to improve detection of small targets and reduce false alarms, without a large antenna or high power levels. The technique is also valuable in helping an AESA detect and track stealthy targets. Once TBD has indicated the location of a possible target, the AESA focuses more power on that area.CAEW has other important features. With high-speed data links -- including line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight options -- delivering 100-megabit/sec. data rates, a CAEW operator on the ground can use the system as effectively as an operator in the aircraft.

Karan M wrote:India's next frontier should be to develop UHF radars and GaN systems. Bi-static systems and passive non traditional radars are also needed.

You can use different wavelengths and technologies, but at the end of the day you need radar surveillance capability in the air, ground and at sea. Every aircraft and ship, military and civilian, coming in to the IOR and subcontinental land mass needs to be tracked. The real improvements will be in signal processing to distinguish and track targets in high clutter conditions.

Modern radar using signal processing statistical sampling with multiple A/Ds can see below the electronic thermal noise floor. Integrating the different radar systems and sensors together will achieve some very good results.

Is it technically feasible to put the DRDO NETRA radar in a C-295AEW plane to make it into a 360°system. Currently airbus is marketing C-295AEW with a Israeli radar, If DRDO can do it there is also a huge potential even to export it. The range and capacity spec of both planes are similar and C-295 are also going to be made in India

The DRDO chief sounded very enthusiastic about the indigenously built AEWACS (Airbone early warning and control system). “We have already inducted one indigenously built system and it is flying from Bhatinda.”

In total, they intended to induct 15 AEWACS and of them five would be from Israel and the remaining indigenous ones.

Of the indigenous ones, two would be smaller ones mounted on Brazilian Embraer-145 jets and the remaining would be on Airbus 330. “We have already received the order for six from the Indian Air Force and the negotiations with Airbus is in the final stages. The indigenous ones will have all the features of the Israeli make so that there may not be two teams operating on two different makes,” said Dr. Christopher.

^^Interesting news abhijat, I dont remember hearing this no. of 15 in a long time on this thread (but given it is active in spurts so i might have msised out). I do remember orders for 3 more falcons, but seems like that no. is further increased to five. The 2 netra are already known. Just curious why is the order of six given to Airbus when it should be 10. Coming back to this no. itself, we certainly need a lot more than this no. for a 2 front war

The DRDO chief sounded very enthusiastic about the indigenously built AEWACS (Airbone early warning and control system).

Of the indigenous ones, two would be smaller ones mounted on Brazilian Embraer-145 jets and the remaining would be on Airbus 330. “We have already received the order for six from the Indian Air Force and the negotiations with Airbus is in the final stages. The indigenous ones will have all the features of the Israeli make so that there may not be two teams operating on two different makes,” said Dr. Christopher.

What was the point of spending all the time and effort and money if only 2 were on EMB145 whereas rest are on a A330?Couldn't they have directly started on a A330? Are there so many issues with the EMB145 since dont recall seeing any such news?

The DRDO chief sounded very enthusiastic about the indigenously built AEWACS (Airbone early warning and control system).

Of the indigenous ones, two would be smaller ones mounted on Brazilian Embraer-145 jets and the remaining would be on Airbus 330. “We have already received the order for six from the Indian Air Force and the negotiations with Airbus is in the final stages. The indigenous ones will have all the features of the Israeli make so that there may not be two teams operating on two different makes,” said Dr. Christopher.

What was the point of spending all the time and effort and money if only 2 were on EMB145 whereas rest are on a A330?Couldn't they have directly started on a A330? Are there so many issues with the EMB145 since dont recall seeing any such news?

The EMB-145 was a testbed program to develop technology. Do you run before you walk? What is this needless fear mongering in every post of yours? The IAF is sensible to ask for larger AWACS as standard so they can remain relevant against LO threats.

There has been immense effort gone into developing the program. That IP developed , including hardware, software, logistics, mission planning all of that _is_ cost from a business sense. Why not hive it off as a business with proper support for export to smaller countries like Indonesia, Chile, Nigeria, Afghanistan. UAE etc.? Why go to Bahrain etc with it and show it off then ? DRDO gets licensing fees and has income for next 2-3 decades from this.Monetize it.

Exports are fine.. and the IAF can use it too.. I would have liked more picket fence AWACS too.But the issue is this, is the effort wasted?Not really, IAF is taking all 3 AEW&C aircraft as versus the original plan for 2.Plus AWACS India is now committed with 6 aircraft order noted.These will likely use new DRDO GaN modules and will significantly outperform the Phalcons (hopefully IAF has asked for this).As such of our planned fifteen strong AWACS fleet, at least 12 will be capable of handling LO & VLO threats into the future. The 300 km ranged AEW&CS can be used against TSPAF to back up the Mirage, MiG-29, Jag fleets with a long ranged sensor. That will give a 100 km range against 0.1 Sq Mtr targets, respectable against LO if not very LO of the kind Khan has. So even the AEW&CS should be good against future PAF J-31 etc.In terms of where the AEW&CS radar has taken us... we have 8 Arudhra MPR, some 18 Ashwini on order as well.The sensor integration and data fusion part has led to CABS/LRDE getting an order for a MPA program for the Coast Guard - 6 mission suites.